B 3 



eC. \'iSl 



E 255 
I.E9 
Copy 1 



PETITION 




OF 



MRS. ANNA C. DeN. EVANS, 



r¥atchez, jflississippi 



TO THE 



SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 



OF THE 



UNITED STATES. 



Dec. 1851. 



WASHINGTON: 

FRIHTED BY B. A. WATEBf, 
1851. 






Please observe the followmK 



Page 
10 
11 
13 

IC 

14 
15 
20 
21 
23 
24 
25 
29 

it 

32 



ERRATA. 



line 

10 

5tli from bottom, 

7 

15, 18, 26, 83, 

23 

3d from bottom, 

1 . . 



for 



item... was, 



read. 
ft. (florins.) 

ft- 

items... were. 

ft. 

ft. 

proper. 

Mrs. 

(D.) 



"paper" 

Mr. 
3d from bottom, after " one half." insert 
17 after Leger. • aAi, in connexion with DeNeufville' s acct. 

11 421,460 . . 421,440. 

13 18,063 . . 18,963. 

11 1,182 8 . . 1,182 2. 

23 1781 . . . 1784. 

6th from bottom, for " 1,000 on the Holland loan with commis- 
sion" — read — -^120, commission on the noU<ind Loan. 



THE PETITION OF 
ANNA C. DeNEUFVILLE EVANS, 

RESIDING AT NATCHEZ, STATE OF MISSISSIPPI. 



To THE Hon. Senate and House of Representatives of thk 
Congress of the United States : 
Your Petitioner, who is the sole surviving heir at law 
and representative of John DeNeufville &l Son, late 
merchants of Amsterdam, Holland, most respectfully 
again asks the attention of your honorable body to the 
just claim of her ancestors against the Government of the 
United States, and a full settlement of the same. Grate- 
ful for the allowance made by order of di joint resolution 
of Congress at its last session, yet she cannot, in justice 
to herself, regard it but as a partial, and not a full pay- 
ment of her claim. It can be demonstrated to your hon- 
orable body, that this claim originated during the CvOn- 
federation, at the darkest hour of the Revolution, at a 
time of distracted counsel, when but imperfect statements 
or records were kept of the accounts of the Confedera- 
tion : and these, under which your Petitioner claims, 
originated out of transactions on another continent, 
through the instrumentality of Government agents or 
representatives residing abroad, and such as did not fully 
accord, or whose views were not sufficiently known to 
€ach other — one of the representatives being then a resi- 
nent at Paris, and the rest at Amsterdam. Nor is it to 
be forgotten, that after the glorious achievement of the 
liberties of the United States, for a series of years the 
Confederation of these States was wholly unable to make 
provision for the payment of debts, which, ^indeed, was 
also the eondition of the Government of the United 



States after the adoption of the Federal Constitution. 
The First Comptroller has, from a careful, but from a 
hurried examination of the accounts under which your 
Petitioner claims, thrown more light upon the justice of 
that claim, than any public officer since the decease of 
D'Neufville & Son. Still your Petitioner is satisfied, 
that but a portion of what is justly due her has been re- 
ported and allowed. And as there w^ould seem to be 
some hesitancy in a part of the Comptroller's report in 
regard to a very large item of charge against Messrs. De 
Neufville & Son, it will not seem impertinent to your 
honorable body that your Petitioner should say, she be- 
lieves him mistaken in some important deductions and 
conclusions, greatly and necessarily to her prejudice. 
Indeed, this could scarcely be otherwise, as some of the 
questions involved are novel, and, perhaps, without anal- 
ogous precedent — while the examination took place 
during a time remarkable for a greater degree of political 
excitement in Congress and of official labor in the Trea- 
sury Department, than any other in the history of our 
Government. Your Petitioner hereto appends a copy of 
the Report of the Comptroller, (A,) with other docu- 
ments, (B, C.) She presents, also, a careful review 
of that report, in which its errors are pointed out. 

By an examination of these papers it will appear, that 
the Government of the United States is still indebted to 
her, as heir aforesaid, in a considerable sum since 1782. 
Although this claim originated in Holland, where the in- 
terest for use of money or debt was generally but five 
per cent., yet, she is advised, the rate of interest is con- 
trolled by that allowed at the place of payment; and her 
ancestors and their lepresentatives have, for near seventy 
years, demanded payment of this claim in the United 
States. She is further advised, that when interest be- 



gins to run upon a debt there is no rule for stopping it, 
but b}^ tendering payment or satisfaction ; which has not 
occurred. In regard to certain ^^ Bills" discussed in 
said report of Comptroller, it is manifest they had been 
paid by Messrs. DeNeufville & Son for the Confederation; 
and although it may appear that the Government did pay 
the same demand to a third party, it equally clear, that the 
money was not paid or re-imbursed to said DeNeufville 
& Son, and there cannot be in law, equity or justice, 
any sufficient pretext from withholding that sum. Your 
Petitioner asserts that, her grandfather, in his devotion to 
to the cause ot American liberty, contributed by his 
personal influence, his credit and his means, largely to- 
wards its achievement, whereby he reduced himself and 
family from affluence to poverty. He left his native coun- 
try with his family, and crossed the Atlantic for this, to ask 
a remuneration and payment, not for his losses, but for that 
which the Government or Confederation owed him, upon 
contracts expressed or implied. In this effort, he first lost 
his son, from insanity caused by the troubles and disap- 
pointments connected with efforts to obtain the payments 
of debts. After this the said John DeNeufville himself 
died, before he could obtain a settlement or payment of 
said debts — and with the exception of Petitioner and her 
children, his family are now extinct. Your Petitioner asks 
the Representatives of this great Government, standing 
now among the first of the earth, to restore to the descend- 
ants, that which their ancestors loaned or advanced in 
money or goods, when your Government was struggling 
for freedom, and when she was recognized by only one 
organized Government among the battling nations of 
Europe, as an independent people. 

I, therefore, present myself before your honorable body, 
not in the attitude of a pensioner, or one asking a gratui- 



ty for family services rendered in tlie hour of trouble and 
distress, but as one feeling and believing that the United 
States owes her a debt — one that the Government will, 
upon investigation, find, is based on justice and righteous- 
ness, which will not be classed with doubtful claims, or 
which can be fairly construed unfavorably to petitioner. 
Although the United States gratuitously aided the grand- 
mother of your Petitioner in her exile and poverty, yet 
surely your government cannot now, in the hour of pros- 
perity and wealth, change the tenor and import of a grant, 
into a payment of a debt or any part of a debt — National 
character forbids the suggestion, and Petitioner will not 
discuss it. She believes this to have been misunderstood 
by the honorable Comptroller. It is demonstrable that the 
basis of the account is correct. It is certain that but a 
portion has been paid to said DeNeufville or his heirs. 
Who, under existing circumstances, represented in the 
Report (imperfectly represented) should sustain the loss ? 
Surely not the heirs of the creditor-party, who failed to 
obtain the payment of the debt while living, from the ina- 
bility of the Govenment to pay, or an unwillingness of 
the debtor party to examine or settle ; but rather, the 
Government of the United States, which will not, in her 
spirit of justice be allowed to reject the claim because of 
doubts now produced by her own losses or delays. The, 
ancestors of your Petitioner and of her children, were 
benefactors of your country — by your paying what is due, 
they will be enabled to contradict the frequent reproach 
that ^' Republics are ungrateful " Your Petitioner, there- 
fore, prays for the passage of a law providing for the 
payment of the balance due her by her accounts, ac- 
cording to the principles of justice and equity. 

ANNA C. DeN. EVANS. 

Natchbz, Mississippi, October 15, 1851. 



(A) 



(Copy of the Report of the Cowptroller.) 

Treasury Department, 

Comptroller's Office, September 20<A, 1850. 

Ta the Honorable the 

Senate of the United States : 

The Senate having passed a Resolution, directing the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury to examine and adjust the accounts of John De 
Neufville &; Son, merchants of Amsterdam, with the United States, 
and to report the result o( such examination and adjustment to the 
Senate; and that Resolution having been referred to this office for 
my action, in pursuance thereof, I respectfully submit the following 
Report : 

That Messrs John DeNeufville & Son were Bankers and Mer- 
chants in the city of Amsterdam, aud were zealous and active friends 
of the United States during their revolutionary contest with Great 
Britain to establish their independence, and rendered very valuable 
services to our country. 

That in June A. D. 1781, they were employed by Major William 
Jackson to purchase a large amount of clothing and supplies for the 
United States to be shipped on board the frigate South Carolina, 
under the command of Commodore Gillon. The purchases were 
made under the authority of Colonel Laurens, then Minister of the 
United States to Holland, with the concurrence and assent of Dr. 
Franklin that Major Jackson should make purchase? to the amount 
of about fifteen thousand pounds sterling, and draw bills on him (Dr. 
FranklinJ at six months to pay for them. Major Jackson exceeded 
his instructions and made purchases to the amount of about £50,000 
sterling to wit: in Dutch Guilders or Florins, ^421,443, and 
drew 171 Bills of Exchange at six months on Dr. Franklin in favor 
of John DeNeufville h Son for the sum of fi 440,417 18 in pay- 
ment ; the nett proceeds, after deducting the discount for the time 
&C.J amounted to the precise amount of the purchases and the com- 
missions of Messrs John DeNeufville &£ Son for making the pur- 
.chases. As the amount of purchases and the Bills, exceeded the in- 



8 

structions more than ihree-fold, Dr. Franklin coniplained of the pro- 
ceeding and refused to acce|)t the Bills. Thereupon, Major Jackson 
and Mr. Leonard DeNeufville, the son of John De Neufville, and one 
of the firm, made a journey to Paris to see Dr. Franklin, and on full 
explanation of the whole transaction, and the representations of Major 
Jackson of the advantages likely to arise to the United States from 
the purchase, Dr. Franklin was induced to accept the Bills, and did 
accept them. 

Considerable purchases were made also by Commodore Gillon on 
account of the State of South Carolina, amounting to 221,385 
guilders, and paid for in the same manner, by Bills of Major Jackson, 
drawn on Dr. Franklin in pursuance of a contract between said Gil- 
lon and Col. [Henry] Laurens, entered into at Paris, April 28, 17SL* 

On shipping said goods purchased for the State of South Carolina 
it was found, that the goods purchased for the United States could not 
be taken by the same frigate and leave sufficient room for the man- 
agement of the vessel and for the men to fight in case a battle should 
occur, and it became necessary to provide other means to transport 
said goods to the LTnited States. Commodore Gillon proposed to 
charter two small vessels to transport the goods, to be convoyed by 
his frigate the South Carolina. As there was great hazard in the 
case, it was difficult to procure vessels for such a purpose, but by 
the efforts of the Messrs John DeNeufville & Son, some of their friends 
were induced to purchase and fit up two small vessels, the Liberty 
and the Aurora, on the condition, as was insisted by them, that the 
firm of Matthew Van Arp h Co., part owners, should be the ships' 
husbands, and managing agents of them — that Commodore Gillon 
should charter them at certain prescribed rates or prices agreed on 
by parole, and that Messrs. John D'Neufville & Son should take all 
the shares or stock of the vessels and make the advances for purchase- 
money, fitting and furnishing, not taken by other persons. The com- 
pany or companies were formed, the vessels purchased, fitted up and 
furnished, all the goods put on board and the vessels sent to the Texel 
with the charter-parties made out and signed by the owners, and 



[* This is a mistake — no Bills were ever given for those goods — the family is not 
3'et paid for them! An indent for JE14,900 sterling being lost, or paid some one 
else.] 



sent to llie Texel to be signed by said Glllon, and the vessels were 
all ready to sail under convoy of said frigate, when said Gillon put 
to sea and left the country without taking them under convoy. 
Messrs. John DeNeufville &t Son became and were the owners of 
one half of the ship Liberty and one fourth part of the Aurora. 

The said Gillon had put to sea without signing the charter-party, 
or taking the vessels in convoy ; Messrs. Matthew Van Arp &. Co., 
the agents of the vessels, took the vessels with the goods back to 
Amsterdam— claimed a lien on the goods in behalf of the owners for 
the freights and damages, and refused to deliver the goods until they 
should be fully indenmified, or good security given to them forsuch 
indemnity, and full satisfaction for their claims. Dr. Franklin and 
the Messrs. D'Neufville proposed an arbitration to settle the amount 
of the damages and the just claims; but the agents of the vessels re- 
fused to arbitrate, and insisted on being re-paid all their advances and 
8,000 guilders or florins for freight and profits. Dr. Franklin sup- 
posed, that as the Messrs. D'Neufville were wealthy and influential 
men and part owners of the vessels, they could control the matter 
and arrange it by arbitration or some other mode which might seem 
to him just and proper, and threatened to dishonor the bills given in 
payment for the goods unless the goods were given up to Mr. Adams, 
then our Minister at Amsterdam. 

It was insisted by Messrs. John D'Neufville &, Son, that they en- 
deavored to prevail on the agents and other owners to deliver up the 
goods and submit their claims to be settled by arbitration or some 
other method that might be agreed upon, but did not succeed in their 
efforts. In this condition, as the bills had been negotiated and trans- 
ferred by them and would become due on the 3lst December, 1781, 
and as the protest of so large a sum might have greatly embarrassed 
them and ruined their credit, they say they were forced, from mo- 
tives of self-preservation, to settle with the owners of the vessels on 
the besi terms they could, and to procure the release of the goods, that 
the bills might be paid and their credit secured. They, accordingly^ 
entered into a Notarial agreement on the 28th December, 1781, with 
the agents, M. Van Arp&iCo., as one of [owners] of said vessels 
and in behalf of the other owners, by which it was stipulated as 
follows : 



10 

1st. That ilie goods should be delivered lo said John D'Neufville 
&. Son. 

2d. That the said vessels and ship stores should be soW at public 
auction on the 14ih January, 1782, and a true, full, and accurate ac- 
count rendered by the agents of said vessels of all expenditures 
concerning said ships, their purchase, repairs, equipments, sale, &;c. 

3d. That the said John D'JXeufville h Son, should pay all damages, 
without exception, which by the said accounts should appear to 
have been sustained by the o^vners of said ships, and also the fur- 
ther sum of 1*8,000, Dutch guilders, current money, to indemnify 
them for insurance effected and the loss of said voyage of the two 
ships, and the profits they mi^'ht Have made thereby. [N.] 

4th. That the said John D'Neufville should give security. 

The goods were give up in pursuance of the agreement, and 
surrendered to Mr. Adams, and the accounts were made out, and a 
notarial copy of the agreement and of the accounts made out in pur- 
suance thereof, accompanying the same, are in the State Department, 
in a volume of Revolutionary papers and letters numbered 145, by 
which it appears that the whole cost for purchase money, equipments, 
supplies, ^c, of the "Aurora," amounted to/ 37,248 03 
Claimed as due to the proprietors by the 

JNotarialAgreementofDec. 28, 1781, - 4,000 00 

Total, - - , -41,248 03 
Proceeds of sale, - - - -20,69216 

Balance claimed, j^20,565 07 

Expenditures on account of the ship " Li- 
berty," - - - - j?28,627 10 

Claimed as due to the proprietors by the No- 
tarial agreement, - - . . 4,000 00 

Total, - - - - 32,627 10 
Proceeds of sale, 16,457 07 

Balance claimad, -fl 16,170 03 

Total balance claimed on account of both vessels, in 

florins, ^36,735 10 



11 

!n addition to the above, Messrs. DeNeufviile made a claim as 

follows : 

" To charges of journey to Paris of Major Jackson and 

L. D. Neijfville to procure acceptance of Bills, -fi- 587 17 

*' To charges of stay days, lighter hire, travelling to and 
from the Texel, as per account, two thirds of which 
are charged to Congress ; one third being to State of 
South Carolina, . ~ . . - .fl i,309 14 

I find no legal evidence to sustain the last charge for lighter hire, 

4^0., and see no propriety of the charge for journey to Paris, under 

the circumstances. 

The Treasury accounts of the United States, Leger B, folio 701, 

have a credit to Messrs. DeNeufville &; Son, August 22d, 1786, by 

Francis Dana, of ^418 26, equal to^l,045 13_[0.] 

In the public accounts of the United States kept in Europe by 

Thomas Barclay, Esq., Consul and Consular agent of the United 

States, the firm of John DeNeufville & Son is credited with said 

large purchase of goods, and charged as follows : 

1781. D€C. 31. To— paid Mr. Jackson 171 Bills on 

Dr. Franklin, - - - ^440,407 18 
To Cabarras &i Co. of Madrid, for the following 
Bills drawn by the Treasurer of Loans in 
America in favor of Capt. Pickles, on Mr. 
Jay, negotiated by said John DeNeufville Si 
Son, and paid a second time by mistake — the 
others having been discharged to Hope &iCo., 
viz : 
Nine Bills, No. 223 to 231 inclusive, 

^333 each, ... - f 2,997 

Fourteen Bills, No. 824 to 837 inclu- 
sive, $225 each, [P.] - - 3,150 

^12,846 15 

1782, July 11. To W. and J. Willink, N. and J. 

Van Staphorst and DeLa Lande 
find Fynje, in Amsterdam, paid them ^'2,373 07 
Before Messrs. DeNeufville &; Son entered into the Notarial agree- 
ment with the agents of said vessels in December 1781, they offered 
to assign and transfer all their interest in the same to the United 
States for the amount of their advances, and relinquish all the profits 



12 

from ihe transaction, and offered to arbitrate, and after the making 
of said notarial agreement they offered to throw off the 3,000 florins 
profits awarded to their shares of the vessels. Dr. Franklin still re- 
quired them to arbitrate the matter, but they insisted that they had 
been forced into the notarial agreement, and to pay the whole claim 
of the other owners of the vessels, and they then refused to arl)i- 
trate, and preferred to submit their claim to Congress, and did so 
submit it soon after; and the result has been, that the claim has never 
been settled. 

After a full examination of the accounts and correspondence to be 
found relating to these unfortunate transactions, I see no reason to 
doubt the good faith, fairness and fidelity to the best interests of the 
United States, of Messrs. D'Neufville h Son — but the management 
was bad and unfortunate — they knew or should have known, that Ma- 
jor Jackson was not only exceeding his authority, but that the quan- 
tity of goods they were purchasing for him was greater than could be 
transported in the frigate Carolina, and on this account, it seems to 
me reasonable, that they should not make any profit out of the pur- 
chase and fitting out of said vessels, Aurora and Liberty, and that 
the ^3,000 profits, &lc., awarded to their share by the Notarial agree- 
ment, should be deducted, as they offered to do. 

They disputed the justice of the charge made against them on the 
books of our public accounts kept in Europe by Mr. Barclay ot 
12,886 15 florins paid by mistake on the drafts in favor of Captain 
Pickle, but in one of their letters they agreed to allow it as a matter 
of compromise, in case the government would settle their account. 

I find in said volume. No. 145, in the State Department, a letter 
from said D'Neufville &, Son, (not signed,) but in the same hand 
writing as many of their^other letters, addressed to the Hon. R. R. 
Livingston, Esq., then Secretary of Slate, and dated Amsterdam, 
5th August, 1782, (the year is somewhat uncertain) from which 1 
quote the following paragraphs, contained after a recital of the 
transactions and settlement of the same with the other owners, to 
wit: " Tliat no self-interest should belaid against us ; we have 
given Congress credit for our share in the j/Z8,000 allowed to the 
owners for damage and disappointments — some of them who had 
made insurance will still be losers. Needless, we think it is, to add 
any thing more, but our solicitations for a speedy reimbursement of 



13 

lhej^21,719, \vl)ich appear to be due on balance, if it is thought 
right." 

As the details of their accounts, except so far as relates lo the 
vessels Aurora and Liberty cannot be found either in the State or 
Treasury Departments, it is impossible to determine with entire pre- 
cision, how the above balance of 21,719 florins was obtained ; I 
think, however, the main item of debt and credit was as follows : 
Balance claimed under the Notarial agree- 
ment on account of those two ves- 
sels 36,735 10 

Less profit assigned to their share - - 3,000 00 

/33,735 00 

Expenses of a journey to Paris to procure acceptance of 

Bills 587 17 



^34,323 07 

Deduct the amount of the draft? in favor of Captain 

Pickles paid by mistake, [P.] .... 12,845 15 



Balance due by calculation $21,476 12 

As the accounts in relation to these vessels appear to have 
been settled in May 1781, and the amount due the 
owners was then due and payable and likely paid by 
D'Neufville &. Son, and the letter in question was writ- 
ten in August following, the probability is, that some 
interest was charged, perhaps for about three months, 
about 1 J per cent. -_...- 24208 

Balance as then claimed by them ... $21,719 00 

This view of the matter seems the more probable, when we take 
into consideration, the mode in which they kept their accounts — their 
system of charging interest, and two charges on their journal made in 
July 1784, of which the following is a translation : 
" The United States of America to profit and loss for 
fourteen months interest on j^23,517 11, being from 
31st July, 1783, to 30th September, 1784" - $1,360 04 
Profit and loss on the United States for indemnifying of 
four years'interest upon the remittance from W. Pickles 
the sum of j^l2,994 9, at five per cent per annum - ^2,599 00 
They thus assent to the charge against them of the amount of 



14 

the Pickles' Bills, and place the interest of the amount to profit and 
and loss, and charge the United Slates with interest on the balance of 
the claim on account of the vesels, &;c., after deducting the amount 
of the bills. 

I can find no other evidence on the subject of these bills, in favor 
of VV. Pickles, except what appears on the face of the accounts. It 
is now insisted, that the charge on the face of it is not legal and fair, 
and should not be clainied by tlie United States. I can see no rea- 
son in questioning the correctness of the charge without fiiriher evi- 
dence — the probability to my mind is, that duplicate bills were 
drawn as was usual — that the first were negotiated and paid by Hope 
h. Co., and the second should have gone with the first — that the sec- 
ond were sold to D'Neufville &t Son, and by them endorsed to Ca- 
barras & Co., of Madrid, and paid to them by the Government. If 
these were the facts, D'Neufville &£ Son were guilty of gross negli- 
gence in taking and paying for the second or duplicate set of bills 
without evidence that the first set had been lost, and for this reason, 
they were responsible to repay the money, and the charge against them 
is correct: at all events, in the absence of proof to the contrary, I 
cannot assume that the charge is not legal and fair. (See Chitty on 
Bills, 8 Am. ed. of 1836, 175 and 176.) 

As to the charge against them for Mr. Barclay's leger of July 
11th, 1782, to Willink &t VanStaphorst, and paid them $'2,373 7, 
it is insisted, &.C., that it was a bill drawn in their favor on the payers, by 
John Adams, to satisfy the balance of an account of DeNeufville h 
Son against him, and the evidence satisfies me that such is the fact. 

June, 1782, DeNeufville &, Son charged John Adams in 

their books, - - - - ^3,772 17 8 

July 1, 1782— They charged him - - - 12 15 

They charge him for postage,^ 4 10 

j/? 3.785 12 8 

1782, July 11 — They credit him for sundries up to, 2,373 07 
«« " For his bill on W. and J. Willink and 

N. and J. VanStaphorst and D'La 
Lande h Fynje, - - - - 1,412 05 8 

Total credits, - - J« 3,785 12 8 

which just balances the account exclusive of the postage. 



15 

Under ihe belief tbat the papers of John Adams would throw 
some light on these items, I wrote to Charles F. Adams on the 9th 
and 10th September last. Mr. Adams in a letter to me, bearing 
date, Quincy, September 18, 1850, says, "Mr. Barclay's accounts 
are in my hands. 1 find there the payment by Willink h Co., en- 
tered II July, 1782, as the settlement of the balance of J. DeNeuf- 
ville, ^1,412 5 8, and that is all." 

The house of John DeNeufville &, Son soon became embarrassed, 
and failed. In 1783 or 1784 Mr. Leonard DelXeulville the son, came 
over to settle their claim on the United States, and to collect their 
numerous debts in this country — his health soon failed and he was 
unable to attend to his business — he became insane some years after- 
wards, and died in an insane liospiial about the year 1812. The 
father (John DeNeufville) came to this country with his family 
('consisting of his wife and daughter,) some years after his son came, 
with a view of settling and collecting his claim on the United States 
and other debts in this country. His health failed soon after he came, 
so that he was unable to attend to business, and he died some years 
afterwards ('December 1796) at Cambridge in Massachusetts, very 
poor indeed. 

The son being insane and the fan)ily in great want, Congress pass- 
ed an act which was approved March 2, 1797 appropriating .|)'300O 
for their relief, to wit: ^1,000 for the mother, ^'1,000 for the son, 
$'1,000 for the daughter, zhis is expressed to be " in consideration of 
particular services rendered the United States during the war of 
their Revolution, by the late John DeJNeufville." — The report of the 
committee shows, that they were not acquainted with the claim of John 
DeNeufville h Son on the Government, but had some general know- 
ledge of their meritorious services rendered to our country. 

The age of the claim should not prejudice it, except as lar as re- 
gards interest since sometime in 1832, when the Government was fully- 
prepared to pay all the first claims then existing. It seems to have 
been pressed upon the Government very frequently from 1782 to 
1790, and nothing but the condition of the family prevented it from 
being presented in paper form since that time. 

In case the Senate should be of opinion, that the amount of the bills 
in favor of Captain Pickles charged to John DeNeufville &t Son, is a 



16 

proj)er charge, then the account, independent of interest, would stand 

as follows — 

1781, June— John DeNeufville &: Son to 171 Bills, at 

6 months, due December 81, - -ji 440,407 18 

Cr. *• By purchases for clothing, 421,443 19 
Comn)ission for making pur- 
chases, discount on Bills, 
journey to Paris &ic., - 18,963 19 

440,407 18 

Cr. 1782 — By amount of expenses and damages paid 
on account of the contract of freight on 
the ships Liberty and Aurora, less the 
jl 3,000 profits assigned to their share of 
the vessels, /33,735 10 

1786 Aug. 22— By Francis Dana, [O.] - - - 1,030 05 



Total credits, - - - 34,765 15 
Dr. To amount paid by mistake, on Bills in 

favor of Captain Pickles, - - - 12,846 15 



Balance due, - - -/21,919 00 
Equal at 40 cents to the florin, - ^'8,767 60 

It is said that interest should be allowed on this claim from 1782 
to the present time. 

On the 3d June 1784, the Continental Congress passed a series of 
Resolutions in relation to debts and finances, of which the following is 
one of them : " That an interest of six per cent per annum shall be 
allowed to all creditors of the United States for supplies furnished or 
services done, from the time that the payment became due." 

This claim being for uncertain and unsettled damases, growinc: out 
of the parol contract of Commodore Gillon to freight the ships Aurora 
and Liberty, the case does not seem to come within the letter of the 
resolution, and yet it seems to come within the spirit of it. If it is re- 
garded as a debt within the meaning of the Resolution — contracted 
in Holland, it would draw but five per cent interest per annum, the 
legal interest of that country. If the Senate should be of opinion, 
ihat the claim should draw interest from May 1782, then I submit 



17 

that the $3,000 appropriated for the benefit of the family in March 
1797 should be applied towards such interest, and that the interest 
should cease in 1832 when the Government was prepared to pay all 
just claims upon it. While the condition and misfortunes of the 
family should not prejudice the claim on account of its age on the one 
hand — they should not on the other hand be regarded as prejudicing 
the Government by subjecting it to the payment of interest after the 
time had arrived when it was prepared to pay, both principal and in- 
terest, of all just claims against it. 

All of which is respectfully submitted, Sic, 



(B) — The Auditor's Report, ^c. 
No. 105, 113. 

Treasttry Department, 

First Auditor's Office, April 12, 1851. 
I hereby certify, that I have examined and adjusted an account between 
the United States and John De Neufville & Son, deceased, late Mer- 
chants and Bankers of Amsterdam, Holland, and find that there is due 
from the United States to their legal representatn s, viz: 
For balance due to said firm as limited and fixed by a Reso- 
lution of Congress in relation to the accounts of John De 
Neufville & Son, approved March 3d, 1851, - - - $8,767 60 
For interest on said balance, from 31 May, 1782 to 1st July 
1832, being fifty years, one month and one day, at 5 per 
cent per annum, ...---- 21,956 75 

From which $30,724 35 

Deducting all payments heretofore made, being payments 
under " an Act granting a certain sura of money to the 
widow and children of John DeNeufville, deceased, ap- 
proved March 2, 1797, viz: 

On the 18th March, 1797, to Anna DeNeufville, 

widow of John DeNeufville, ... - 1,000 

On the 25th May, 1797, to Samuel Breck, attorney 
of Anna Margaret DeNeufville, infant daughter 
of John DeNeufville, deceased, - . - 1,000 

On the 18th April, 1798, to Theophile Cazonove, 
guardian of Leonard DeNeufville, son of the said 

John DeNeufville, 1,000 

3,000 00 



Leaves the sum of - - - - $27,724 35 



18 

Which ninount of twenty-seven thousand, seven hundred and twenty-four 
dollars and thirty-five cents, is payable to David Bone, Esq., of Natchez, 
Mississippi, attorney of Mrs. Anna C. DeNeufville Evans, only survi- 
ving grand-child and heir of the said John DeNeufville, deceased^ 
in pursuance of a rosolution in relation to the accounts of John DeNeuf- 
ville & Son. 
Approved, MarchZd,lS5l. 

As appears from the statement and vouchers herewith transmitted for 
the decision of the Comptroller of the Treasury thereon. 

T. L. SMITH, 

$27,724 35 ■f'i^s^ Auditor. 



To the First Comptroller i 
of the Treasury. ^ 



(STATEMENT.) 

The United States, 

To John DeNeufville & Son, deceased, late Merchants 
and Bankers of Amsterdam, Hollaftd, 

[Dr. 
For Balance due to said firm, as limited and fixed by a Reso- 
lution of Congress in relation to the accounts of John De 
Neufville & Son, approved March 3d, 1851 - - $,8,767 60 
Interest on said Balance from 31st, May, 1782 to 1st, July 
1 832, being fifty years, one month and one day. at 5 per 
cent per annum, -------- 21,956 75 

$30,724 35 
From which is to be deducted amount of ail payments here- 
tofore made, being payments under an act, granting a cer- 
tain sum of money to the widow and children of John De 
Neufville, deceased— approved March 2d, 1797 - - 3,000,00 

27, 724, 35 
Which amount is payable under and in pursuance of a " Res- 
olution in relation to the accounts of John DeNuefville & 
Son" approved March 3d, 1831, to David Bone, Esq.. of 
Natchez Mississippi, attorney of Mrs. Anna C. DeNeuf- 
ville Evans, only surviving grand-child and heir of the 
said John DeNeufville, deceased. 

Treasury Department, 

First Auditor'' s Office, April 11, 1851, 

M. H. MILLER, 



Comptroller'' s Office, April 12, 1851, 
Wm. Anderso 



4 



19 

{Note on the Auditor's Statement.) 
Note, 

The Agent for the claim of John DeNuefville & Son, deceased, con- 
tends per letter herewith, dated April 10, 1831, that the sum bf $ 3,000 
paid under the act of March 2d, 1797, " was given as a grant (gratuity) 
a gift, no account was presented and of course no payment was made. " 

In answer, however, it must be said, that while the title of the Act of 
March 2d, 1797" an act granting a certain sum of money to the widow 
and children of John DeNuefville, deceased," would appear to give some 
countenance to this construction, — the act itself specifically provides, that 
there shall be paid out of any money in the Treasury, not otherwise 
appropriated, specific sums amounting to $ 3,000, " in consideration of 
particular services rendered the Urdted States, during the War of their 
Revolution, by the late John DeNuefville." The particular services, 
while valuable, appear to be wholly of a pecuniary character, set forth in 
the accounts. 

It therefore appears, that the proviso in the resolution of March 3d, 
1831, for "deducting all payments heretofore made" refers to and em- 
braces the sums paid under the act of March 2d, 1797, and they are ac- 
cordingly deducted. To decide otherwise, would be to say, that the pro- 
viso in the act of March 3d, 1851, has no meaning whatever. 

M. H. MILLER. 
April 11, 1851. 



(C.) — The Register^! Certificate. 

Treasury Department, 

Register's Office, April 10, 18S1, 

I hereby certify, that there is no charge on the books of this Office for 
payments made to John DeNeufville & Son, late of Amsterdam, Mer- 
chants. 

That under the act of the 2d, March, 1797, entitled "an act granting 
a certain sum of money to the widow and children of John DeNeufville, 
deceased," the following grants were made, viz — 
On the 18, March 1797 ''To Ann DeNeufville, widow of 
John DeNeufville, for the amount of a grant made to her 
by an act of Congress, passed 2d March, 1797 - - 1,000 00 
On the 25 May, 1797, " To Samuel Breek, attorney of Anna 
Margaret DeNeufville, guardian of Anna DeNeufville, 
infant daughter of John DeNeufville, deceased, for the 
amount of a grant made her by the act, &c." - - 1,000 00 

On the 18, April, 1798, "To Theophile Cazenove, guar- 
dian of Leonard DeNeufville, being the amout of a grant 
made said DeNeufville, per act 2d March, 1797" - - 1,000.00 



},000, 00 



TOWNSEND HAINES, Regisia 



20 

(LelUr to Mr. Eva?is^ Attorney, referred to in the Auditor's Statement.) 

Washington, D. C. 

April 10, 1851. 
M. H. Miller, Esq., 

Dear Sir: The Act of Congress passed at the last Session, makes 
provision for the settlement of the account of Mrs. Evans, but if I under- 
stand it, does not require the subtracting from the admitted amount of the 
claim, the sum of $3,000, which was given as a grant, (gratuity) a gift — 
no account was presented, and of course no payment was made by Con- 
gress on a special act to Mrs. DeNeufville, and her children in 1797, for 
" services and sacrifices. " 

In proof of this, I beg your attention to the "Documents'' accompanying 
this note — Letters O and P. Neither Mrs. DeNeufville's petition, nor 
the act of Congress, nor the debates, nor the letter of the Secretary of the 
Treasury, say one word about the present claim — but admit another 
claim, arising from sacrifices, services and losses sustained while aiding, 
or in consequence of aiding the United States, diplomatically. 

Please have a great care of the " Documents," which are to be re- 
turned to me. 

Yours, very respectfully. 

JAMES NOURSE. 

P. S. — It will be unnecessary to read all the " Documents," but be- 
sides those marked "0" and " P," you will find, by looking at the in- 
dex at the end, a letter of Mr. Lee, and also a second letter of his con- 
tained in a letter of Marshall Sprigg, a member of Congress. 

J. N. 



Treasury Department, 

Register's Office, July 18, 1851. 

I certify the foregoing four pages are true copies of the original report 
and statement on the account of John DeNeufville & Son, on file in 
this office. 

TOWNSEND HAINES, 

Register. 



REVIEW OF THE 

COMPTROLLER'S REPORT 



To the honorable the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled : 

According to a Resolution of the honorable Senate of the United 
States, addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury, the First Comp- 
troller examined the account presented by your Petitioner, as the 
heir of Messrs DeNeufville &t Son, late merchants of Amsterdam, 
and reported thereon to the Senate, September 20, 1850. By a joint 
resolution of both Houses of Congress, adopted and approved March 
3,1851, the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized to pay to the 
heir of said firm, the sum of ^8,767 60, with interest, for a certain 
limited time, which was, accordingly paid on the 15 April succeeding. 

The Report of the Comptroller exhibits a patient and judicious 
search for evidence, which is candidly examined and honorably esti- 
mated. It is altogether an able document, and, considering the intri- 
cacies of the case, is deserving of the highest praise. 

To important portions of that report, your petitioner, the heir of 
Messrs DeNeufville, feels constrained to take exception ; and hence, 
from a just regard to her own interests, to solicit a re-examination by 
Congress, believing that such examination will procure, in equity, a 
more generous decision in her favor. 

The account presented by the heir of Messrs. DeNeufville & Son, 
claims a large balance existing against the Government of the United 
States, in 1782-84. The account, however, when presented to the 
Comptroller was left open, that every item thereof might be examin- 
ed by the accounting officers of the Treasury. These have seen fit to 
allow only 21,919florins,beingsomewhat less thanone half. Besides 
this serious difference, the rate of interest allowed was only 5 per cent, 
and the time of the accruing of that interest was limited. Your pe- 



•22 

tilioner is Bensible, that while the honorable Comptroller has, as he 
says elswhere, rejected " all doubtful items, and all items not sustain- 
ed by the evidence," he has, unfortunately for her, rejected some 
items which ought to have been allowed — this she desires to show. 

It is certainly, for her, a favorable circumstance, (when the distant 
time in which the accounts of the Confederation of the United States 
relating to transactions on the Continent of Europe were made out, 
and the admitted perplexities of the agents employed, are considered,) 
nay, a very material circumstance, that, by the Report of the Comp- 
troller, the sum of ^2,373 7 stivers, charged to Messrs DeNeufville, 
in Mr. Barclay' leger (E,) is admitted to have been, what it was 
represented by the heir of DeNeufville to be, viz.: a payment by 
Mr. Adams of a bill against him, on his private account. The proof 
of this allegation ^was furnished chiefly by the Mercantile Jour- 
nal of Messrs. DeNeufville, and corroborated by Mr. Charles F. 
Adams. (See Comptroller's Report page 14 above.) Thus it is ad- 
mitted that, in one particular, the Leger of Mr. Barclay is incor- 
rect, or imperfect. The charge should never have been entered 
on the Government Book, or else the bill, of which the sum charged 
was a payment, should have been entered also, as a credit. 

By refering to Mr. Barclay's Leger, page 266, it will also 
be seen, now that the charge is understood, that Mr. Barclay 
himself confirms Messrs. DeNeufville's Journal. 

The foregoing, with some other items, which are admitted by the 
Comptroller, are referred to by your petitioner, in proof of the general 
accuracy of the accounts kept by her Grandfather, and to furnish evi- 
dence, that, as confessedly each book of the Government, where the 
account is kept with Messrs. DeNeufville is imperfect in itself, (com- 
pare F. the Register's Rev. acct. with D.) so, each may be inaccurate 
in itself, and therefore they should be considered open for correction. 
And this the more readily should be admitted, when it is not to be 
concealed, that Mr. Barclay's Leger was corrected by the Govern- 
ment itself (in several items where errors occurred) at the final settle- 
ment of the accounts of Silas Deane ; (see the act passed for relief of 
his heirs, August 11, 1842, — account No. 6037,) and that there 
exists in the Treasury Department an old volume, rescued, though 
half burnt, from one of the fires to which the Treasury Department 



1 



23 

has been subject, which shows an account with Messrs. DeNeufville 
made out for Mr. Barclay and signed by himself, widely differing 
from that contained in his Leger. There is a manifest error also 
in Mr. Barclay's Leger, wherein it is stated, that Messrs. DeNeuf- 
ville charged 2 per cent commission on certain bills in 1780, whereas 
Mr. B's. own account, which corresponds with DeNeufville's Jour- 
nal, shows it to have been but J per cent. Besides, Mr. Barclay 
has omitted to credit Messrs DeNeufville with any commission on 
the Holland Loan. 

It follows, therefore, that the Government cannot now insist on Mr. 
Barclay's Leger as infallibly exhibiting a perfect account, for it accords 
with neither of the other Books of theGovernment, and Mr. Barclay's 
leger has been found, in other places, confessedly imperfect. DeNeuf- 
ville &i Son's Books, so far as they go, are accurately and beautifully 
perfect. 

First. — Let us cprefully examine the important items of charge 
contained in said Leger. — (1st.) The first is that of ^440,407 18 
stivers, entered as the amount of 171 Bills of Exchange drawn by 
Mr. Jackson on Dr. Franklin at 6 months, in payment of purchases 
made for the Government of United States, by order of Colonel John 
Laurens' Secretary, Major Jackson, then in Amsterdam. The amount 
of those 171 bills, however, is entered on the Register's Book as 
only ^421,443, (see F.) Here is an important discrepancy — and 
this statement of the amount of these bills, not only accords with the 
account rendered by Messrs DeNeufville, but, in addition to the 
entry made by the Register, that officer states parole information 
given him personally by Major Jackson — recorded at the time. (F. 
note 1.) That the Register is correct, cannot admit of a doubt, where 
he charges against Messrs DeNeufville the 171 Bills, as only^421,440 
— for he says " for their receipt, dated August, 1781 — for four 
hundred and twenty-one thousand, four hundred and forty bank-guil- 
ders, equal to 333,816 crowns, 15 livers, being for an invoice of 
goods purchased &,c." — (F. note 2.) This corresponds with Messrs 
DeNeufville's statement of the number of crowns. (Letter in Vol. 
146, Washington papers. State Dept.) In a copy of another letter 
written by the firm (probably to the President of Congress — compare 
Dip. Cor. XI. page 302, and evidently written before the accounts 



24 

were fully adjusted) these Gentlemen say, " we have the honor 
«' to lay it, [the Invoice] before your Excellency, as it now amounts 

" to currency j^ for which Congress is charged, and credited 

" on the contrary for currency jl amount of the bills on 

**■ Paris, as we find upon the Exchange of that day, calculating the dis- 
" count at 6 per cent perannum, on account of inconveniency of the 
*' bills." ('This letter is in MS. among Messrs DeNeufville's papers.) 
As the discount here spoken of would be 3 per cent for 6 months, the 
brokerage would be 1^ per cent for the same time, which are charged 
by Messrs DeNeufville, (probably together making what was termed 
" the agio")— or jZ 1 8,964 IS. This sum added to ^42 1,460— will 
make up Mr. Barclay's charge of j^440,407 18, which, indeed, was 
the amount of the bills when they became due at 6 months sight in 
Paris, and was the amount paid by Ferdinand Grand, Banker for 
United States, as his account shows. But it is clear, that the 
original amount of the 171 bills was but j^ 421, 440, and whatever 
more was paid, should have been charged against the Government of 
the United States, to account of profit and loss — not to Messrs De 
Neufville ; this were entirely to deprive them of every advantao-e 
from negociating bills and furnishing goods at 6 months. 

Moreover, it is deducible from the forgoing demonstration of the 
amount of the 171 bills, (they being only for 421,440 florins,) that 
as Messrs DeNeufville furnished goods to the amount of ji 422,443 
19, — for so their account states the sum, and so does Mr. Barclay in 
his Ledger, not only in the account headed " Messrs. DeNeufville St 
Son," but also under the different heads o( " Clothing department '' 
SiC, Sec, wherein every item, even of the smallest kind, is enumerat- 
ed : — that not only is the difference of the original amount of the bills 
and the sum paid by F. Grand not to be charged to them — but they 
are to be credited with the sum of 1000 florins, as the additional 
value of the goods furnished according to the invoice. If this ex- 
hibit is not correct, its inaccuracy can be shown ; but no one will assert 
that it is sufficient to conjecture as the report does — that these ^18,- 
963 19 stivers were for "commission for making purchases, discount 
of bills, journey to Paris, &.c," — and thus, in a lump, charge them to 
Messrs. DeNeufville : which is very singular ; the sum being so charg- 
ed without any proof. (A. page 7, 16.) Nor is the statement which 



26 

occurs near the begining of said Report, (A. page 7.^ that Messrs. 
DeNeufville " made purchases to the amount of j^421,443, and drew 
♦' 171 bills he, for ^440,417 18, the nett proceeds, after deducting 
" the discount for the lime &lc., amounted to the precise amount of 
" the purchases and the commissions for making the purchases" — 
borne out by the fact. Let us suppose it were — 1 ask, (1.) why 
charge them with the discount? and (2,) Mr. Barclay's Book 
shows that their commission of 2 per cent was included in the sum ol 
^422,443 19 stivers. In fine, it may be observed, that if the 
j^I8,963 19 are to be charged to Messrs DeNeufville, it could only 
have been by special contract (which would seem almost impossible, 
for then, the amount paid by F. Grand would have been 421,440 
less 18,063 not plus that sum.) But in the failure of the United 
States to exhibit such contract, it will not be just to charge the same 
to Messrs DeNeufville — and that too, contrary to every precedent. 
Your petitioner, therefore, feels herself authorized to refuse an ac- 
knowledgment of the charge of ^18,963 19 stivers, and insists upon 
it, that the Register's account is correct, as it corresponds with the 
" Receipt " of Messrs DeNeufville, and with their accoun t and their 
repeated statement. 

2. If the 171 Bills were for the exact sum of j^.421, 443 only, 
and if Messrs. DeNeufville furnished goods above that amount, why 
should their charges /or lighters and staydays at the Texel, and the 
expenses of a journey to Paris, be supposed by the Comptroller to 
be included in the amount of the Bills, as originally drawn or as paid 
by F. Grand, when the causes of these charges occurred subsequently 
to the drawing and acceptance of the Bills. The difficulties which 
arose about the Bills and their payment were such, that Major Jackson 
(accompanied by L. DeNeufville) went to Paris to obtain their ac- 
ceptance. (Diplomatic correspondence, vol. Ill, p. 221-233, and 
vol. Vl, p. 75.) Messrs. DeNeufville received the Bills as accept- 
ed, and gave their receipt for them, viz., for /.421,443. Sub- 
sequently to this, Messrs. DeNeufville, charge the items thus : — • 



26 

The United States, Dr^ 

1781, June 18 — To amount of sundries bought by order 

of the honorable Col. J. Laurens, /Z422,443 19 

" •• To charges of a journey to Paris of 

Major Jackson and Ld. DeN. to pro- 
cure acceptance of bills. - - 587 17 

« " To charges for stay-days ; of lighter- 

hire ; travelling to and from the 
Texel, as per account — two thirds 
of which are charged to Congress — 
one third being to the State of South 
Carolina, ----- 1,309 15 

Now it should be observed, that the journey made by Major Jack- 
son from Amsterdam to Paris in June 1781 — (see Diplomatic Cor- 
respodence vol. VI, p. 75, IX, 229, 231, 233,) was as a public 
functional y, and it was by consent and with the advice of Mr. Adams. 
(D. C. VI, 75, and p. 38, comp. IX, 245, 246.) And, by their acc- 
ount, Messrs. DeNeufville furnished the means. Your public officers 
were so poor when abroad in those times of trial, that they could 
scarcely command any means. The mercantile Journal of Messrs, 
DeNeufville shows, that they frequently advanced money to Mr. 
Adams, and on Mr Adams' request, to others. Major Jackson was 
Col. Laurens' secretary, authorized by him (see Dip. Cor. Vol. IX, 
above and Col. Laurens' MS. letters in the State Department) to 
transact the business of the purchases in his stead. The Govern- 
ment of the United States was bound to pay such expenses as 
were necessary to the accomplishment of his misson. Messrs. De 
Neufville advanced the money to him as to an accredited agent of 
the Government of the United States. The journey was accom- 
panied with expenses of course. Messrs. DeNeufville, by no rule of 
equity, ought to pay them : they advanced the means to a moneyless 
agent of the Government — and charged them to the Government. No 
procedure could be fairer than this. As regards the allegation of the 
Honorable Comptroller, that the amount of the goods being so much 
larger than Dr. Franklin expected was the cause of the difficulty, and 
that Messrs. DeNeufville, ♦' knew or should have known that Major 
Jackson was exceeding his authority, &c.," the truth is. Major Jack- 
?on did not exceed his authority : he acted and he avowed he acted, 



27 

by commission from Col. Laurens, (D. C. IX, 245, assisted by Messrs. 
DeNeufville, whom also Mr. Laurens employed, IX, p. 228,) inde- 
pendently of any authority from Dr. Franklin. Dr. Franklin chides 
him (D. C. Vol. Ill, p. 231, 232,) for acting so as to bring Col- 
Laurens and himself almost into collision. Moreover, the whole cor- 
respondence, and especially the letters of Colonel Laurens to Con- 
gress (Vol. IX.) expressly repudiate the idea of any authority being 
derived from Dr. Franklin. We have the important and positive tes- 
timony of Mr. Adams, that the cause of the difficulty was, the want 
of an '^ understanding " " sufficientlxj precise and explicit " between 
Dr. Franklin and Colonel Laurens, (Dip. Cor. Vol. VI, p. 75.) 
and this is proved by their correspondence of Dr. Franklin and Major 
Jackson. The allegation of the Comptroller, therefore, cannot set 
aside the propriety and justice of the charge made by Messrs. DeNeuf- 
ville, for the expenL,esof the journey. If liquidation of this charge be 
refused, it will be to make innocent men suffer for the public poverty, 
and for the want of concert among the United States' functionaries in 
Holland and France who were "all new in these matters" sa}s 
Dr. Franklin ; and who therefore might make mistakes. (D. C. Ill, 
p. 218.) Nor can it be said with propriety, that " the quantity of 
goods" purchased by Messrs. DeNeufville was greater than could be 
transported " by the frigate Carolina" — for it was not. The proba- 
bility is, she might have taken them all; and they were actually stored, 
either in whole or in part, on board, but were all removed, as well as 
the goods of the State of South Carolina — while large parcels of goods 
purchased by Col. Jas. Searle of Philadelphia and by others, were re- 
tained on board — goods likewise purchased of Messrs. DeNeufville. 
(All these statements can be proved by public documents, by orignal 
letters of Commodore Gillon, and by copies of letters to and from Maj. 
Jackson and Messrs. DeNeufville, still extant.) Dr. Franklin did 
not blame Messrs. DeNeufville, but chided Major Jackson, and par- 
ticularly condemns Commodore Gillon, whom he charges witli great 
delinquency, and expreses a hope, that if" that man " should return 
to America he would be severely punished, (see MS, letters. Fi- 
ance papers I, No. 137, p. 483, State Department.) Nor does Mr. 
Barclay blame them in 1782, (see " Finance Letters," ibid.j And 
in regard to to the lighters, it should not be forgotten, that Commo- 



28 

dore Gillon's course exhibited a vacillation, which created pew diffi- 
culties and unnecessary and increased expenses at every turn. The 
charge for a single lighter at the Texel, it appears, from Messrs. De 
Neufville's Journal (Vol. I. p. SO,) was Jl. 83 6. Many lighters 
were, probably, necessary in reshipping the goods ; and charges for the 
use of them, and for unnecessary detention of Messrs. John and Leon- 
ard DeNeufville at the Texel, and journeys thither, (see their 
letters,) would be made, altogether proper, and according to the 
ordinary course of business. Their charge, therefore, will not 
seem inadmissible, when it is known, that for the space " of 
three weeks" (DelNeufville's letter in Washington Letters State 
Department, Vol. 145, p. 71, 72,) they were occupied in loading the 
South Carolina, and in unloading her and loading the other vessels. 
Nothing is more reasonable than that the United States should now 
pay these charges. Thus far, we have a balance o(Jl2,891 12 over 
and above the amount of the Bills. 

3. While it is a painful history which is given of the " disappoint- 
ments" connected with the goods and with the vessels containing 
them, all the events speak nothing against the integrity of Messrs. 
DeNeufville. The goods were, according to contract, shipped on 
board the " South Carolina" — thence they were removed to two ves- 
sels, the " Aurora " and the " Liberty" — and even a third vessel was 
employed. But who should defray the expense of this] labor? 
Surely the owner of the goods and the authorized agents of that 
owner, by whom they were purchased and by whose orders they 
were shipped on board the South Carolina, according to contract, and 
by their orders unshipped and reshipped, and by whose bad manage- 
ment they were, eventually, left behind in charge of the Merchants. 
After the departure of Commodore Gillon and Major Jackson, they 
were necessarily removed from those vessels in which they had been 
stored, (and in which they remained from July to November,^ and 
removed back to the warehouses and there they continued several 
months ; until Mr. Barclay took charge of them, and by other ves- 
sels, forwarded them to the United States. 

But, to perform this work of re-unloading them and placing them 
in safety for the winter season, until Mr. Barclay 'should arrive, light- 
ers were again necessary. And does it become an honorable Govern- 



29 

menl to leave tlie payment of their expense to Messrs DeNeufville ? 
Your memorialist admits, that her grandfather does not enter in his 
account any second charge for lighters, &c., but the charge is found 
in his Journal. Moreover, it was the custom of the house, to ren- 
der particular accounts for particular transactions, (this is the fact in 
regard to the vessels ; — see the account in the State Department,) 
and this is, most probably, the reason why the second charge is not in- 
serted in the account relating to the purchase of the goods and their 
delivery to Commodore Gillon ; which the account above transcribed 
appears to have been. Now, in the " American Facteur Book, No. 3" 
('an invoice book kept by Messrs DeNenfville,) there is a charge 
against the State of South Carolina, (see G,) which charge was ad- 
mitted and audited by said State. The goods for the State of South 
Carolina were marked " L. B. I. N," and in that bill, the charge is 
stated to be for oiie third of the expenses of transhipping and re-storing 
and warehouse hire — the other two thirds being to the United States. 
The 07ie third chBrged to the State is, j^l,182 8. The State of South 
Carolina acknowledged at the settlement of Messrs DeNeufville's ac- 
counts, that this charge was correct. Why should not the United 
States repay the other two thirds, viz., the sum of ^2,364 4. 

4. Another charge is made for certain expenses connected with 
the sale and transfer of goods in 1782. This item is found in Messrs 
DeNeufville's Journal, May 1. 1781, transcribed from the Day Book^ 
page 143, 247. This entry in the Journal is, indeed, four years after 
the transactions about the goods of the two ships, and three years after 
the delivery oi the goods to Mr Barclay. The amount is ^957 8 : 
and in the Journal, the reason of the charges are specified. Will the 
United States deny the evidence of the Journal, because it may not 
be accompanied by special vouchers? Considering the intricacies of 
the case, this would be impossible. Moreover, the books of accounts, 
which would be evidence in Holland are, by special treaty, admitted 
to be evidence in the United States. The accuracy of the accounts 
of Messrs DeNeufville in general, should here plead in their favor. 

5. There are several other charges entered in Messrs DeNeufville's 
Journal ; and the honorable Comptroller has attempted, (in an ex- 
cellent spirit, it must be admitted,) to give a clue to those charges. 
But the Comptroller does not seem to have remembered, that Mr. 



30 

Barclay passed the spring and summer of 1782 in Amsterdam, and 
was there busily employed in shipping the goods, both of the United 
States and of the State of South Carolina, to the different ports of this 
country, as fast as he could obtain freight — and that his invoice 
book (the old semi-burnt book above referred to) shows that he kept, 
(luring that time, an account with Messrs DeNeufville &. Son, of 
which there is no transcript in his Leger. Now, as these entries are 
so late as 1784 and 5, it is more reasonable to suppose they have 
originated in transactions between Mr. Barclay and Messrs DeNeuf- 
ville at that liine, and that some particular settlement was made about 
them. Otherwise, they may lawfully be considered, at least, a part 
of them, as yet unpaid — and the Government should pay them. 
These charges are (I) ofj/ZlO,670 16 stivers, and (2) of ^1,360 4, 
interest for 14 months on ^23,517 11, (recorded. Journal I, p. 189— 
194. The first entry being of a particular debt, said to be recorded 
also in the "European Note Book, fol. 168.") The most that can be 
said against these charges is, notwithstanding the ingenuity exercised 
in the Report, that they are inexplicable now. And, for this reason, 
your memoralist does not insist upon them ; but surely, for this same 
reason the Government should not, after summarily setting them aside, 
make use of them as if they were charges against Messrs DeNeufville > 
as the ingenuous author of the report attempts to do 

6. There is another item which your memorialist has charged 
which the Report has altogether omitted to notice — it is the commis- 
sion of 2J per cent on disbursements for Congress of j^83,340 5 8. 
Messrs DeNeufville state, that this commission was due them. They 
say to GiLLON, to whom they wrote in 1785, entreating bis in- 
fluence (as he was then a member of Congress) to obtain a speedy 
settlement — that if a settlement could be immediately made, he micht 
omit this'charge. But they had entered it in their full account, then 
transmitted. This account is indeed lost. But a settlement was not 
then made — and has never yet been made. (H.) 

Is it not just that this commission should be paid ? if, indeed, they 
made disbursements for Mr. Adams, as your Representative, and for 
Congress? The amount they say was ;^1,666 f6 on/83,340 5 8, 
i. e. 46,604 16 8 disbursed; and 36,735 10 for the ships. 

Your honorable Body will find, by referring to Mr. Barclay's 



31 

Leger, that other firms charged, and were allowed large sums as 
commission for transacting the very same kind of business, /or which 
no commission was ever paid Messrs. DeNeufville, (see the accounts 
of Van Staphorst and W. &i J. Willink and others.) 

Your petitioner would now present, in brief, the facts thus far reach- 
ed, with such in part as are admitted by the Report, viz : Dr. 

(1) The particular account relating to the goods, and 

their being loaded, &ic., in 1781, as presented 
by Messrs. DeNeufville, including the charges 
for the two ships, / 36,735 10, - - -39,633 02 

(2) Add the second bill for lighters, warehouse hire, 

&c, 2,364 04 

(3) Bill of charges, (a balance probably) for 1782, - 957 08 

(4) The entries in Journal, page 189-194, - - 12,031 00 

(5) The commission asserted to be due — two per cent. 

on j^ 83,340 5 8, 1,666 16 



(6) And we have the total of their charges, - *^56,653 10 

This sum was, probably, due them in 1784, besides interest on a 
part of it from 1781. 

That they claimed only the balance of ^21,719 on all their trans- 
actions with the Government is impossible — and no greater error has 
been committed in the Report, than to interpret a letter in relation 
to the ships, (which, also, because \t\s unsigned, seems to have been 
considered by the writter as unfinished, and needing correction and 
is of uncertain date) probably (the report intimates) August 5 1782 
in which a balance is mentioned of ^21,719 due them — (see report 
page 13) as a statement of the bahnce, in full, due them on the whole 
of their accounts, from 1781 to 1784. The account which was sent 
to Congress, was that of certain transactions only — others, as these 
books show, were settled or awaiting settlement in Europe. Or, ii 
that abraded, unsigned, and obscurely dated letter is to be considered 
evidence, or is thought to contain a statement of the whole balance 
due, it is quite as reasonable a conjecture, as that of the author of the 
Report, that the writers having made some deductions from the above 
sum of ^56,653 10, intended to say the whole balance was ^41,719, 
not 21,719 as the figures appear to read. The truth is, that in con- 



32 

sequence of the similarity of the figures 2 and 4 as used in their 
accounts, it requires caution not to mistake the one for the other, of- 
tentimes. Whatever view be taken of that letter, the explanation of 
the Report is unquestionably inadmissable for (1) If that letter was 
written in 1782, a deduction could not have been made of the amount 
of the bills of Mr. Pickles — for the Government did not charge them 
with those bills till 1184, nor is there any notice in their books of 
these Bills from 1780 to 1784. Moreover, (2) the sum of ^1,030 15 
for which Messrs DeNeufville received credit on the Register's Book 
and with which the Comptroller credits them in order, (after deduct- 
ino- the bills of Mr. Pickles,) to approximate to the full balance which he 
supposes they claimed in 1782, was not credited to them, till 1786 — 
four vears after. The Comptroller's conclusion must, therefore, be 
wrong, for it is impossible, that Messrs DeNeufville could, in 1782, 
have charged themselves with bills which were not charged to 
them till 1784, or credited themselves in 1782 with a sum which was 
not paid for them till 1786. Your petitioner, therefore, insists that 
there was due her grandfather the following sums, viz : — 

(1) The balance of the invoice over and above the 171 

Bills, ^1,000 00 

(2) The expenses of the journey of Major Jackson, - 587 17 

(3) The charges for lighters, he, to first delivery of 

goods, 1,309 15 

(4) The charges for lighters, &,c., to second delivery 

of goods to Mr. Barclay, ... - 2,364 04 

(5) Cash advanced to settle with owners of the ships, - 36,735 10 

(6) The commission of 2 J per cent on money disbursed, 1.666 16 

(7) The bill of charges connected with last shipments, 957 08 

(8) The payment made by Francis Dana, - - 1,050 05 



Making, in full, the sum (in 1782) of - -j^46,651 15 
And beside this sum, there would seem to be due him j^ 1,000 on the 
Holland Loan, with commission. And this is exclusive of import- 
ant charges which are made upon Messrs. DeNeufville's Journal, 
but which cannot now be explained, (see above 5.) 

Now, if from this sum, the amount of Pickles' bills be deducted, 
and again the jZ 3,000, which, in 1782, Messrs. DeNeufville ex- 



33 

pressed a willingness to relinquish, (i.e. 12,846 15 -|- 3,000 equal to 
15,846 15) there will still be due your petitioner, since 1782, a 
very considerable sum ; even on a settlement chosen, in a great 
degree, by the Government. 

But, your Petitioner would do herself injustice were she satisfied 
with this result — for it may greatly be questioned whether the Gov- 
ernment is doing justice, to insist upon the deduction ofeither of those 
sums. — Therefore, 

Secondly. — She would ask, (1.) on what grounds, after the lapse 
of more than sixty years, the ^.3,000, allowed Messrs. DeNeufville 
as joint-owners of the Dutch vessels, " Aurora" and " Liberty," 
are denied her at a settlement? Because, that in 1782 while Messrs De 
Neufville were rich and prosperous — a prosperity, only ruined by 
their advances of money and goods for the use of the United States — 
and when they corld afford to be generous to a struggling Republic — 
because they then offered for the sake of, and with the iinplied pro- 
viso of a speedy settlement, to relinquish that sum — is their heir now to 
lose it? Your Petitioner expresses her astonishment at this conclu- 
sion, and remonstrates against such deduction at the present time. 
She desires to say, that she has yet to learn tliat every offer of sac- 
rifice made in good faith to take effect provisionally within a limited 
time, is to be considered perpetually binding. She therefore insists, 
that it does not comport with the honor of the United States to re- 
quire or even to ask, that the sum allowed by the Burgomasters of 
Amsterdam to Messrs. DeNeufville, should be relinquished by her. 
The ground assumed in the Report is, that in addition to the expressed 
willingness of Messrs. DeNeufville to relinquish it, they deserved to 
lose it because they purchased so enormously, &;c. But this allega- 
tion has already been disproved — and the printed records of your 
Diplomacy disprove it fully. Major Jackson did not exceed the com- 
mission given him by Colonel Laurens, the commercial plenipoten- 
tiary at that time of the United States — and Messrs. DeNeufville 
were employed by Major Jackson, and with the sanction of Colonel 
Laurens himselt. Not a shadow of a reason exists why, these Gen- 
tlemen should deserve to lose their quota of the award. Did the 
Government chastise Colonel Laurens? or even chide him ? Did it, 
especially, repudiate the acts of Major Jackson? Will it chastise 

E 



34 

Messrs. DeNeufville ? Besides; if in 1782 Messrs. DeNeufville may 
have expressed, and that m a letter, confessedly, wanting a signature 
and of doubtful date — if then they may have expressed a willingness 
to donate that much to the United States: — in 1784, when they made 
out their account they charged the whole sum of j^.36,735 10. 
Thus they recalled their offer, because it had not been accepted. 
Their right to do so, no one will question. The whole amount should 
be paid. (And see below H. note.) 

(2.) She would now say a few words in regard to tha Bills of Mr. 
Pickles. The amount of these Bills, _^.12,846 15, is deducted 
from the account, in order to obtain the balance which was allowed, 
viz. _;^.21,919. The language used in the Report shows that there 
might be some uncertainty about making this deduction : though the 
Bills were thought to be correctly charged. There is, unquestionably, 
some mystery connected with the whole affair; and Messrs. DeNeuf- 
ville's heir should have the benefit of that mystery. Mr. Pickles was 
Captain of the American packet-ship, Mercury, which, with Henry 
Laurens and other Americans on board, was captured by the British 
frigate Vestal, 23 August, 1780, (Dip. Cor. II, 461.) Pickles was 
taken to Portsmouth, England, and there confined. In October fol- 
lowing, the Bills were received and negociated by Messrs. DeNeuf- 
ville, and as their Journal shows, (Vol. I, p. 71,) transferred to Augus- 
tin Quenau h Co., Madrid. There they were paid by Mr. Jay, the 
American ambassador. But by some Mistake, Bills of Mr. Pickles, 
(two sets for the same amount) were paid twice. The mistake ap- 
pears not to have been discovered until December 1783, when the 
United States Commissioners from different quarters settled their ac- 
counts in Paris. (Dip. Cor. Vol. IV, 186). One set had been paid 
Messrs. Hope ^ Co. of Amsterdam : so says Mr. Barclay's Leger, 
which charges the Bills in 1784 to Messrs. DeNeufville. Now it is 
not known who had the first set — the probability is, that Messrs. De 
Neufville had that set — for they were in correspondence with Pickles j 
and they wrote about him to their London correspondents, Manning &t 
Co. (gentlemen in London who were so attentive to H. Laurens and his 
son, and through whom Messrs DeNeufville loaned H. Laurens £1000 
while in the Tower ; of which proof can be furnished.) Now, it is evi- 
dent from Messrs. DeNeufville's accounts, they did not discover the 



35 

mistake till 1783. Neither did the United States Commissioners till 
that time. Should Messrs. DeNeuJville then be charged with the 
Bills? This is a grave question: one which involves nice points of 
law, commercial and international. Chitty, who might be considered 
authoritative on such points, by no means, in the places referred to in 
the Comptroller's Report, undertakes to settle this question — indeed 
he hardly can be considered as referring to such a case at all, either 
in those places or in his great work on Bills. If Messrs. DeNeufville 
knew not of the double-payment for four years, it is more than doubt- 
ful, whether they ought to pay the amount. Yet, while they were 
still in the enjoyment of competence, and when about to emigrate to 
this country to collect debts which were due them amounting to more 
than $ 150, 000, they seem to have " consented" (so says the Report) 
to pay them as a matter of "compromise,^' and from regard to the in- 
terests of the United States. They then charge Pickles with the 
amount. But Mr. Pickles, who was commander afterwards (on one 
of the Lakes) of a Government vessel, appears by their books never 
to have repaid them. Moreover, it is certain that Merssrs DeNeuf- 
ville, left with Messrs RoUand &£ Co., their successors in Amsterdam, 
when the former removed to the United States in 1785, funds to pay 
these bills if demanded. Those funds were never returned to them. 
This is unquestionably a hard case : and your Petitioner appeals to the 
generosity and equity of the Government, therefore, not to insist on a 
charge, by which, at least twice, the estate becomes the payor of the 
amount of those Bills. 

Thidly. Your Petitioner would now animadvert on two or three 
particulars of the honorable Comptroller's Report, in which she thinks 
she has been dealt with in a spirit not to be commended. (1.) On, 
that portion o/ the claim which has been passed % the Com.ptroller, 
there is allowed only an interest of 5 per cent. The reason assigned 
for this is, that " the debt was contracted in Holland.^' Now it is a 
little remarkable, that all the circumstances under which the debt was 
contracted, and the time and place, present the creditor in a very fa- 
vorable light. Risks were run: and a benefit conferred, as well as a 
debt allowed to be contracted. If all things be carefully estimated, 
your petitioner is convinced, that they will at once be seen to lay a 
foundation for payment of interest rather above than under that 



36 

which is conimonly allowed. Thus, vviih becoming gratitude, (even 
though she was much disappointed in the delay of her goods,) the State 
of South Carolina seems to have judged. Her debt to Messrs DeNeuf- 
ville, with the concurrence of the United States in 1789, was allowed 
7 per cent, on the " principles of the Funded Debt." This debt was 
contracted at the same time, under similar circumstances, and for sim- 
ilar reasons. Your Petitoner is convinced, that there is no law in ex- 
istence, either statute or commercial, by which 5 per cent only should 
be allowed on her claim. Beside, it is apparent that 6, and not merely 
5 per cent was sometimes chargeable even in Holland. (See DeNeuf- 
ville's Letter above p. 24.) One important consideration should surely 
be brought prominently into view here. This debt due Messrs, De 
Neufville is the last of your Foreign Private debts. It is placed 
by your great financier, Robert Morris, (I) in the same class as those 
of Caron DeBeaumarchais, Silas Deane, Oliver Pollock, and the Far- 
mers General. These, at your several settlements with them, were 
allowed six per cent. Part of the debt due to Silas Deane was 
contracted in Holland; no difference was made. And your Pe- 
titioner knows not of a single precedent for refusing 6 per cent on her 
claim. That interest has, so far as she knows, been uniformly allowed 
on domestic and foreign debts: on debts contracted in England, France 
Germany, Spain, Canada, &ic. And when it is recalled to mind, that 
the act of June 3, 1784, allowing 6 per cent was passed about the 
time when those five debts referred to by Robert Morris were much 
talked of, it would seem probable that the said act had a special refer- 
ence to this case, with those of Silas Deane and Caron DeBeaumair- 
chais and others. Your petitioner feels constrained to PROTEST 
against this narrowness of a Government blessed with a full purse, 
in making her case an exception to a general rule. 

(2.) Another subject of complaint to your Petitioner is, that even 
the meagre interest of 5 per cent was not allowed subsequently to the 
year 1832. She has known no instance of such a claim as this being 
treated in the same manner. She desires it to be remembered, that 
this claim has frequently been presented to the Government: it is, 
therefore, no fault of hers that it has not long since been settled. It 
was presented in 1782, 1783, 1784, in 1786, 1789, 1798, (K.) 
1799, and then laid by, only because of the inability oi her family to 



37 

prosecute it. She entreats therefore, that since delay in the case has 
been by no improper neglect, on the part of the claimant, only the 
same generosity may become apparent in adjusting her claim, which 
has been apparent in adjusting those of others. 

(3.) Your Petitioner also perceives, that in settling her account the 
Dutch florin is reckoned only at 40 cents — wher-^as, at the time the 
debt due her ancestors was contracted, the florin was worth 46^26 + 
cents. 

(4.) One thing more, and your Petitioner will close what she has 
to say concerning the Report and the accounts. 

She cannot but express her astonishment, that any deduction should 
be made from a claim so justly founded and so meritorious, as 
that of her grandfather, John DeNeufville, because of a gratuity 
made by Congress to her grandmother, uncle, and mother in 1797„ 
The Auditor's Report, a copy of which is hereto appended (B. supra,) 
will show, that at the time of the late payment, an objection was raised 
by one of her attorneys, to said deduction. Against this, of all acts 
she considers injurious to her on the part of the Government, she 
has most to protest. There never was a payment since June 1781, 
(when the 171 Bills for ^421, 440 were received J of any debt or of 
any portion of an account between Messrs DeNeufville and the United 
States. At the time the sum of ^3,000 was bestowed, it was not 
considered a payment of any pecuniary claim either by the donor or 
by the receivers. First, It was not so considered by the donor, the 
United States. (1) It was granted upon a petition for relief, from a 
family whose head recently deceased, was confessedly a great bene- 
factor to America, while he had lived in Holland, by his political secret 
services. Proof of these secret "'services" can this day be furnished 
in hundreds of letters from the secret agents of the United States in 
Paris and at the Hague and elsewhere — yet in MS. This same in- 
dividual had endured great losses, and made great "sacrifices" to 
accomplish ends and objects, ardently desired by the United States, 
and greatly tending to her benefit. (2.) The terms of the act of 
1797, granting the relief, says nothing about an account — though it was 
known that account existed and had frequently been presented, (3.^ 
The report of the Commissioner says, " impossible to ascertain and 
liquidate the compensation due to the services rendered" — (see re- 



38 

port.) (4.) In the language used in the debate — (see the papers of 
the day, in Colonel Force's office,) no speaker made reference to any 
account. Some of the members of Congress even proposed a larger 
sum than ^3,000, because they considered the sacrifices ol John De 
Neufville very great ; and all seem to have restained their desire to 
benefit the family only by the remembrance ofthelownessof the public 
purse. (5.) The terms employed by the Secretary of the Treasury 
in forwarding the sum to Mrs. DeNeufville, imply nothing of a 
payment. (L.) Neither Secondly, was the sum of ^3,000 con- 
sidered by the receivers as a settlement of a claim, or any payment 
whatever, towards the present or any other pecuniary claim. Hence 
Mrs. DeNeufville, after the passing of the act for the relief of the 
family, who were reduced to poverty by the failure or neglect of 
their creditors — renewed her application for a settlement of the 
present claim both in 1798, and in 1799, and forwarded her account 
to the Treasury in hope of a settlement. Thisis suffiicient to show 
that the family — the receivers— did not admit the ^3,000 as a pay- 
ment of a pecuniary claim, in whole or in part. In proof of these 
statements, your Petitioner would also call your attention to the peti- 
tion of her grandmother, to the report of the Committee who report- 
ed the bill for her relief — to a copy of the letter of the Secretary of 
the Treasury, and to the letters (still extant) of Mrs. DeNeufville's 
attorney in Boston to members of Congress. Beside, there is no 
charge in the Register's office against the estate of DeNeufville — 
(see Mr. Haines' statement C.) With these remarks she leaves the 
subject, relying upon the honor of a prosperous Government, now 
rich and powerful, not to revolce a gratuity bestowed more than a 
half century since, for "sacrifices and services" rendered to your 
country, by one who was once able to help her when she was poor 
and feeble. 

Fourthly. In her former memorial to Congress, (in 1850,) 
your Petitioner considered herself entitled to request, in addition to 
a full settlement of her accounts, a further indemnity for the losses 
of her grandfather and family in the service of the United States. 
In the petition preferred at present, she expresses her intention not 
now to offer such request ; yet, she may here, in conclusion, be in- 
dulged in presenting some considerations which may have a tendency 



39 

to conBrm the truth of her claim, and which might, perhaps, have 
opened the way, had they before been heard, for such a request as 
she originally proposed : — certainly they will serve to place in a 
dark shadow the apparent narrowmindedness by which the ^3,000 
gratuity in 1797, has lately been converted into a payment upon 
an account. 

Your petitioner states her conviction and the conviction of every 
person who has taken pains to examine the documents and letters by 
which her claim is illustrated and sustained, and to compare them with 
the Diplomatic history of the United States in France and Holland 
during the memorable struggle of the Revolution, that her grand- 
father and his family became the victims of their ardent love for the 
interests of this country, and of the mistakes, disputes, and jealousies 
of those agents who transacted your Foreign affairs in 1780-84. 

Your honorable Body is aware of the difficulties encountered by 
those who sought the aid of bankers and eminent merchants on the 
continent during that trying period. 

From the very beginning of the contest with England, John 
DeNeufville appears to have engaged his heart and to have opened 
his purse, in various ways to help the cause of Freedom. In the 
Diplomatic letters of DeNeufville, and in his letters to those of 
his commercial correspondents who resided in America, in a thous- 
and instances, he breathes strong prayers for success, gives thanks 
for victories obtained, and encouragements when adverse events 
occurred, indicating altogether an amount of sincere interest with- 
out a parallel in a foreigner. Acts of generosity were performed 
by him, which are acknowledged by Dr. Franklin, Mr. Adams, 
Mr. Jay and others, who assured him, that should America ever 
become prosperous she would generously repay the obligation, (Dip. 
Cor. 371, VII, 287, 298, 471,* 302.) This acknowledged obliga- 
tion, was in part repaid by a gratuity of ^3,000, in 1797. His 



*"Your plan for paying the Bills drawn on Mr. Laurens is noble and generous." 
"The kind concern you take in the credit and prosperity of the United States 
"merits their acknowledgements, &c. As a man, I admire and esteem your con- 
" duct, and as an American, I thank you." — John Jay, VII, p. 290-292. " I ad- 
" mire the generous principles, which lead you to take so decided and friendly a 
" part in favor of America. I have too great confidence in the honor, justice, and 



40 

zealj therefore, did not confine itself to prayers and congratulations, but 
was exhibited in substantial labors at the hazard of life and prop- 
erty. Of all the citizens of Holland, he first endeavored to bind his 
own country and yours together by commercial treaty : and in this 
effort he presented himself as your advocate when the storm was ra- 
ging around your country in its highest fury. His name is recorded 
therefore, with "services and sacrifices," in the early documentary 
history of your country. A copy of a treaty signed by John DeNeuf- 
ville as the Representative of the City of Amsterdam being found 
among the papers of Henry Laurens at the time of his unfortunate 
capture in 1780, gave birth in a very remarkable degree to the sub- 
sequent rupture between Great Britain and Holland. In addition to 
the testimony of such men as Lee, Adams, Franklin and Jay, numer- 
ous unpublished papers, still extant, prove the fact that his house was 
the focus of American influence and intelligence in Holland, and that 
there, and through him, and at his expense, secret correspondence be- 
tween emmissaries and secret and public agents of your Government, 
residing in Holland, France, England and Germany, was successfully 
carried on. More than one journey did John DeNeufville perform 
with the purpose of benefit to the United States (see W. Le&'s un- 
published Letters.) And the temporary secrecy, which policy and 
prudence imposed on his connexion with our public affairs, while 
it has removed, in a measure, the outward and available evidence of his 
disinterested efforts in our ccuntrys' cause, lays a deeper claim for grate- 
ful and substantial remembrance. Not only had he to bear the odium 
heaped upon him by the " Anglo-mane Party" (as Mr. Adams 
terms it) in Holland, — for it was no secret that he was laboring in 
the American cause — {Dip. Cor. Vol. VI, p. 165, 166,) but he had 
also to endure severe losses which befel him in the war which soon 
ensued between England and Holland. By the capture of St. Eusta- 



" gratitude of Congress, to suspect they -will permit you to be sufferers by your 
" exertions in tlieir favor, &c. — id. p. 296. " Such disinterested acts of friendship 
" are not common, and ought never to be forgotten." — id. p. 298. The generous 
" and critical services rendered these United States by Messrs. DeNeufville, have 
" recommended them to the esteem and confidence of Congress. You will signify 
" so much to them, and that their services will not be forgotten, &c." — President 
" of Congress to John Jay, VII, p. 417, 391. The same sentiments are reiterated 
in Dr. Franklin's luipublished letters to Messrs. DeNeufville. 



41 

tia in 1781, his commercial ability was crippled; and being singled 
out by the British Government as a mark for its revenge, he was 
forced to sell his funds in English stocks at a sacrifice. When you 
had no consul at Amsterdam, he nobly undertook in the face of dan- 
ger and obloquy, to refit the storm-beaten and cannon-battered squad- 
ron of Commodore John Paul Jones, in that harbor. Numerous un- 
published letters of that Commander, as well as those which are found 
among your published documents, attest not only this fact, but ex- 
hibit the sense of deep and lasting favor entertained by him and by 
his co-efficient officers. On this occasion, as well as in regard to the 
transactions about the Bills on Henry Laurens, your Minister at Paris, 
Dr. Franklin made honorable acknowledgement. " I hope" says he, 
" it" (the squadron) " will not through the influence of the English, 
" meet with any unfriendly treatment from your Government. Ameri- 
" ca will one day be in a condition to return ivith gratitude the 
" kindnesses she receives from other nations.^' But this kindness 
was rendered by John DeNeufville against the expressed wishes of 
the Stadtholder and the people at large — the gratitude is due to him 
therefore, and the return also. Among other acts of service, be- 
sides the loan of a £1,000 to the captive Laurens, may be enumera- 
ted, providing with money and clothes, poor American seamen (lib- 
erated captives) and aiding them to return to their homes. It is 
affirmed by one of his correspondents, that he " tried to oblige every 
American," and some of those obliged Americans admitted it, with 
praises for his generosity. Money was also loaned to private individ- 
uals, who were in need, while far from home, much of which was 
never repaid: (see Dip. Cor. Ill, 160, and DeNeufville's Journal,) 
and in one glaring instance to a government agent ; payment of which, 
after long waiting, was demanded of that individual (whose accounts 
Congress settled, see Register's Blotter, p. 525,) but was refused. 
His correspondenGe also proves that the hospitalities of his mansion 
were ever free to Americans: The American festivities of the 4th 
July, 1781, were openly celebrated at his house, (see Gillon s Let- 
ters.) 

This brings your Petitioner to observe also, that her grandfather 
became the " victim," unintentionally, of the mistakes, errors, jea- 
louses and disputes of the agents of your Government in Holland and 
in France. Evidence of this is in part furnished in the Report. To 



42 

Commodore Gillon especially, but in still greater measure, to the 
want of concert, so fully revealed in their published letters, between 
Dr. Franklin, Col. Laurens, Major Jackson and Mr. Adams, may the 
downfall of Messrs. DeNeufville be attributed. Whatever disputes 
arose,— and that disputes did arise is undeniable— one thing is evi- 
dent, that without his own fault John DeNeufville became thetufFerer. 
It is not necessary now to prove, (for it will not be denied by any one) 
that the delay of payment for such large supplies of goods, as were iur- 
nished the State of South Carolina, together with the non-payment 
of the money advanced for the United States to settle with the own- 
ers of the Dutch vessels, was, as they themselves declare, the cause 
of the ruin of Messrs. DeNeufville. " We became the victims of our 
" exertions in favor of the glorious cause; but we rely upon the justice 
" and honor of America not to neglect or abandon their most faithful 
"servants"— (1783:) "Our unbounded forwardness, when the country 
" labored under the greatest difficulties, brought us, to the unfortu. 
" nate dilemma, to become the victims by want of proper support." 
(Messrs. DeNeufville's Letter to Congress, transmitting their account, 
24 November, 1784, Letter Book, p. 407.) 

Your Petitioner would not be insensible to the kindness of the 
Government of the United States in rendering aid, in 1797, to her 
afflicted grandmother and mother, when her grandfather borne down 
by losses, ingratitude and misfortunes, had descended in poverty to the 
grave ; his last years embittered by the lunacy of his only and beloved 
son from similar causes :— but, while the sum then afforded them was 
considered but a mere moi^y, in return for numerous, and important 
benefactions, she would respectfully say, that the manner in which that 
gratuity has been withdrawn in the recent settlement, has, in a great 
measure, undermined the reasons of her thankfulness. 

But your Petitioner would not be tedious. The sum of the matter 
is this: a wealthy and generous Benefactor of your country periled 
and lost his all in serving you ; that which was denied him by a Na- 
tion harassed and struggling with difficulties, or which was confessed 
to be an imperfect recompense, will surely not be denied to his grand- 
daughter by a people now rich, prosperous, and happy. Your riches 
prosperity and happiness were procured, in no inconsiderable degree, by 
the " losses, services and sacrifices^' of John DeNeufville, when clouds 
and dcrkness brooded over your skies. Has not the time come for 



43 

the fulfilment of promises and of recompense to self-sacrificing friends ? 
Your Petitioner therefore prays that a Bill, authorizing the payment 
of the balance which she claims, may be passed for her relief. 
For, to use the language of your great Financier, " the reputation 

OF THE COUNTRY WILL BE COMPROMISED UNTIL THIS DEBT BE DIS- 
CHARGED." {R. 31orris, 1784.) All which is respectfully submitted, 
By your humble servant, 

ANNAC. DeNEUFVILLE EVANS. 
Natchez, Mississippi, Dec. 1851. 



D. pp. 20, 22 above. — Mrs, Evans' Account. 

THE UNITED STATES, 

IN AccT. WITH Messrs. DeNEUFVILLE & SON. Dr. 

1781, June 18. — To clothing shipped on board the South 

Carolina, by order of Col. Laurens, /422,443 19 
" " To boat-nire, charges of stay-days, &c., - 1,309 15 

" " To expenses of a journey to Paris, by 

Major Jackson, &c., - - - - 587 17 

1782, •• To charges for redelivery of the goods on 

board the two vessels, warehouse hire, &c, 2,364 04 

1782, July 11.— Amount of bill against Mr. Adams, - - 2,373 07 

To cash advanced to settle with other 

owners of the ship "Auiora," - - 20,565 07 

•• <' To cash advanced for ship " Liberty," - 16,170 03 

" . «• To charges connected with transfer of 

goods in 1782, 957 08 

«• " To commission on money advanced, &c., 1,666 16 

1786, July, 11.— To cash paid by Francis Dana, - - 1.030 05 

469.469 01 
(Contra below) 4 23.817 06 

Balance in favor of Messrs. DeNeufviile, ft 45,651 15 
To which should be added the commission of 

3 per cent onj^4000, "Holland Loan,"* 120 00 

y?45,77l 15 



* Extract from a private letter of John Adams to John DeNeufviile, when he 
negociated the first Holland Loan, Amsterdam, February 2, 1781. " I have had 
"much conversation upon this subject with several gentlemen of character and 
" experience, and am advised, that one per cent to the House for receiving the 
" money and paying it to the orders of Congress — one per cent for paying off the 
" interest; and one per cent for paying the principal finally to the lenders, is a 
" just and reasonable allowance. This commission I am willing to allow." (Comp. 
Dip. Cor. V. 327, 337 : VI. 4, 268, and Mr. Barclay's Leger, p. 260, 268.) 



44 

Contra. (^^^ 

1781, Dec— By 171 Bills of Major Jackson on Dr. Frank- 

„ '^"' „ 421,443 19 

By W. & J. Willink, .... 2,373 07 



^423,817 06 



(Ep. 22 above.— Copy of Mr. Barclay' s Leger.) 

JOHN DeNEUFVILLE & SON, AMSTERDAM. Dt 

1781, Dec. 31,— To Mr. Jackson 171 Bills, - - -440,407 18 
" " To Cabarras & Co., Madrid, for Bills of 

Mr. Pickles on Mr. Jay, negotiated by 
said DeNeufville & Son, and paid a sec- 
ond time by mistake, the same havmg 
been discharged to Hope & Co., - . 12 846 15 

1782, July 11.— To W. & J. Willink, N. & J. VanStap- 

horst and Dr. Lande & Fynje of Amster- 
dam, paid them 2,373 07 

/ 455,628 00 

Contra. (Jj. 

1781— By clothing shipped on board the South Carolina 
frigate, &c., by order of Colonel J. Laurens for ac- 
count of United States, - - - . . 422 443 19 
" By new account for balance, .... 33*18401 

Paris, 20 July, 1787. .... ^ 455,628 00 

(F. p. 22, 23 above— Revolutionary Leger in the Register's Office.) 
JOHN DeNEUFVILLE & SON. Dr. 

1785, May 18.— To Willink & Co., - . / 7,050 $2,722 08* 
1786,Aug.25.— To Mr. Jackson. - . 421,443 $185,451 47 



$188,175 55 



Ct. 



CONTEA. 

1782 — By clothing shipped per " Herr 

,7eA o^i"""'"- r^■ " ■ •>^237,105 13 14 95,983 76 
I7cb. — by t rancis Dana, 4jg qq 

1789. — By interest account, - - 50 00 00 

By transfers, - - - 7,000 00 00 

',402 14 



[* Figures scratched in the record. They are wrong— yet added into the ac- 
count.] 



45 

F. note 1, page 23 above. Extract from the Register's Blotter, 81 Dec, 1782, 
Clothing, &o. bought, as Major Jackson says, " with part of a sum of money 
charged in the account of Mons. Grand, Banker in Paris, charged to Major Jackson 
for Bills drawn by virtue of his authority from Col. Laurens." 

F. note 2. page 23 above. Extract from Register's Blotter, No. 3, Messrs. 
DeNeufville & Son, " For their Receipt dated August 1781, for four hundred and 
twenty-one thousand, four huntlred and forty-three Bank guilders, equal to 
333,816 crowns, 15 livres, being for an invoice of goods purchased, &,c." 

(G. p. 29 above. — Copy from American Facieur Book, p. 544, 545.) 

" Account of charges incurred on the goods marked " L B I N" since 
the unloading and storing of the same in the warehouses, March and No- 
vember, to their being stored in that named "Stocliholm." 
To different stay-days of lighters since 16 August (where- 

from I) for account of the State of South Carolina, - ^652 00 
" To expenses of journeys, lodgings, boat-hire during the lay- 
ing of the ships, the Aurora and Liberty at the Texel and 

the Helder, 185 07 

"To the Haarlm. Vum laborers by the delivery, stor- 
ing, &c., i 

" To Maas Smit & Co., Waterman's bill, ^ part, 

" To warehouse rent from 1 October, 1781 to 18 January, 

at 17 perM. \ part, 

" To warehouse rent from 18 October 1781 to 18 January, 

at/17per. M. 

" To different small charges by delivery of the goods, 
" To insurance against fire upon the goods, ^ 58,000 at ^ per 
cent. -----.-- 



The one third ofthe charges being 1,182 02, as admitted by the South 
Carolina account — the remaining two-thirds are due from the United 
States, ^2,364 04. 

(H. p. 30 dhove.— Extract from Messrs, DeNeufville^ s Letter to Gil- 
Ion.— Copy- Book, p. 408, Nov. 28, 1784.) 

•* On which we never charged any commission, - 46,604 16 8 

•' Nor for the disbursed money on account of Congress,* < i «' ^yn nq n 

83,340 05 8 
'• On which a commission of two per cent should remain 

our due, 1^666 16 

* This letter is dated November 21, 1784 — and it will not fail to be perceived 
that then he claimed the full 36,735 10 he had advanced — not deducting the 3 000— 
and also claims commission on the whole. 





20 


13 




15 


02 


1 


8 


15 


1 


76 


10 




5 


06 




217 


10 


fll 


,182 


02 



43 



" This Sir, we observe to you only (that if you choose we should not 
"pretend to have it paid) you could make a merit thereof in our behalf, as 
" we never charged any commission for Congress to his excellency, John 
"Adams." 



(I. p. 36 above. — R. Morris' letter to John DeNeufviUe\ and his 

statement.) 

" Office of Finance, 30 Sept., 1784. 

"Sir, I am to acknowledge the receipt of your favor of the 15th of 
"June last. It gives me much pain Sir, that the affairs of your house 
" with the United States are still unsettled. — Your son's state of health 
" would certainly have prevented the adjustment of them in this country, 
"had there been no other obstacle.— I can only express my hope, that you 
" will have full reason hereafter to be satisfied with the justice and grati- 
" tude of the United States. 

"I am sir, your most obedient servant, 

" ROBERT MORRIS." 

Upon his departure from office in 1784, Mr. Morris evinced the sinceri- 
ty of his wishes so kindly expressed, by directing the attention of Con- 
gress to this business : thus, 

" Of all our foreign debts none remain unpaid, (those particular loans 
" bearing interest and payable at a future period excepted^ but the sum of 
"eight hundred and forty six thousand seven hundred and seventy livres, 
"fourteen sols and five deniers due the Farmers General; the sum of 
"seventy four thousand eighty seven dollars due with interest to Oliver 
" Pollock, and the balances, which on a final adjustment of accounts, may 
" appear to be due to Caron DeBeaumarchais, Silas Deane, and Messrs. 
" DeNeufville & Sons : at least none others now appear, and if any exist 
"they cannot be considerable. Of the affairs of Mr. DeBeumarchais 
"nothing can be said with precision until they be liquidated, and if any 
"thing should appear to be due, the reputation of the country 
"will be compromised until it be discharged. And the same re- 
-mark applies to the case of Messrs. DeNeufville and Sons, &c." 

ROBERT MORRIS. 



(K. p. 36 above, — General Washington^ s Letter to Leonard DeNeuf- 
ville.) 

New York, June 29, 1789, 

"Sir, Your letter of the present month and the papers accompanying 
"it, have been handed to me since my late indispositon. As all pub- 
" lie accounts and matters of pecuniary nature will come properly under 
"the inspection of the Treasury Department of the United States, I shall, 
•' when the Department is organized and established, have those papers 



47 

" laid before the Secretary thereof, and so far as my official agency may 
"be necessary in the business, it will meet with no delay. 
" I am, sir, your most obedient servant, 

"GEORGE WASHINGTON." 

(L. p. 38 above.) 

Extract from a, copy of the letter of the Secretary of State to 
Mrs. DeNcufville in 1797. — "The Secretary of State, with com> 
'pliments to Messrs- DeNeufville, encloses a copy of the act passed at 
'the late session of Congress for her relief, &c.," 13 March, 1797. 
Extract from copy of the act. — '' Be it enacted by the Senate and 
' House of Representatives of the United States &c., That in con- 
' sideraiion of particular services rendered the United States during 
' the war of their Revolution^ by the late John DeNcufville of the 
' United Netherla7ids, (^-c. t^c." Extracts from the debate «^'C. — " The 
' Petition" of Mrs. DeNeufville and daughter was read — " and a 
' letter from John Jay, one from George Washington, two from Mr. Lee, 
' one from Hope i.nd Co. of Amsterdam, &c.'' (These letters related to 
'the services" not to the present claim of John DeNeufville.) "Mr. 
' Thatcher moved to strike out 3,000 and insert 5,000. Mr. Ruth- 
'erford supported the amendments because after this generous re- 
' publican had sacrificed his all, we should do something for his unfortu- 
' nate family: — he had never heard a single dissent or dissatisfaction at 
' the grant made to Count DeGrasse's family,* — he therefore concurred 
'in the present. Mr. Harper said, the justice of the House and the 
' character of the country was implicated in the decision : on such an oc- 
'casion he would obey the sentiments of his heart, and leave it to his 
•judgment to justify the impulse of benevolence and generosity ; the 
'husband and father of the petitioners stood forward almost alone, at an 
' hour when the fate of the United Stales was yet suspended in the balance : 
'he had entered into the spirit of our Revolution and procured a Treaty, 
' when scarcely another man could be found in Holland to treat with our 

ministers: he embarked his private fortune in loans for our service, and 
' he put those arms in our hands with which we discomfited our enemies ; 
'he was not even satisfied then, for his house was the asylum and home 
'of every American that resorted to Amsterdam; add to all this, he em- 
' barked the bulk of his fortune in supplies for our support, when our suc- 
'cess was problematical — not with the cold calculating spirit of a mer- 
' chant, but with the ardor of a freeman, &c., &c." [See paper sin Col, 
Force's office.) 

(N. — Note to Comptroller^ s Report, p. 10 above.) 

This sum, ^8,000, may seem large as a charge in such a casa, but it 
should be remembered that the ships were furnished with arms and ammu- 
nition, with letters of marque, with 80 and 60 men severally ; and of 

* Payments were made to the four daugliters of the Count DeGraspe, by act of 
February 27, 1797, $4,000 in four instalments — by act of 15 January, 1795, in 
six instalments, $5,153 56 — the last portion was paid in 1803. 



LiBRftRV OF CONGRESS 

48 

"{i"'''07i "800 528 4 ♦ 

cpurse the wages of the seamen, their consumption c *" .. *, -.^.i.agc lu- — ,^^ 

the vessels &c., would be considerable during four months or more while 
they lay in the Helder previous to their discharge. 




(0. — Note to Comptroller' s Report, pp. 11, 16, above.) 

The credit on the Register's Revolutionary Book, for the sum paid by 
Francis Dana is ^418, 26, which by the Comptroller is on p. 11, said to 
be;?. 1,045 13 stivers, but in the final account on p. 16, is reckoned as 
only "/. 1,030 05, August 22, 1786." In Messrs. DeNeufville's Jour- 
nal there is a credit given Francis Dana for certain bills on B. Franklin, 
for $425. 

Now it will be perceived that the Revolutionary Book (F. ) does 
not give the number of florins, and therefore if the florin be reckoned 
at 40 cents, and if by this value of the florin, (its present value) the 
account is to be settled, the sum credited should have been j^. 1,045 13. 
But if the $418,26, be equal to /1, 030 5, that the florin was worth cents 
40,59+. But in settling Messrs. DeNeufville's account, it is beyond a 
question, that the florin should be reckoned at its commercial value in 
1781 — for its value was then considerably greater ; and it gradually 
diminished, in consequence of the rising consequence of the United States ; 
less risks in trade with America after the Revolutionary War; and the 
improved currency of the country. That the value of the florin fluctuated, 
in exchanges between America, England, Holland, France and Spain, 
is evident from the accounts then kept. 

e.g. DeN. Jl., p. 71— $6, 147 00==/? 12,435 07 i. e. aM9, 43+ cents. 
p. 72— 210 00= 463 15 i. e. ftM5,52+ " 
«. p. 72— 72 00= 156 15 i. e. at 45,93+ " 

.« p. 98— 486 00= 1,068 04 i. e. at 45,51+ " 

" p. 152—210 (May 1781)=/M53 18 i. e. at 46^26+ cents. 

Thus, at the time of the transactions referred to in this claim, the florin 
was reckoned at least at 46^ cents. At what value ought it to be reck- 
oned in settling this claim ? 



(P.) — Amount of Pickles' Bills. — Note to Comptroller' s Report, pp. II, 

13, 16, above.) 

These 23 Bills were for $6,147, as DeNeufville states them j and the 

-itroller also. They were reckoned in 1780-81, at/.12,435 7st. : 

butin 1784, they were reckoned at /.12,846 15. But by neither of 

these reckonings is the florin represented by 40 cents. By the 1st it 

was=49,43+, by the 2d= 47,84+. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




011 800 528 4 # 



HoUinger Corp. 
pH8.5 



